Precinct Walk for Chris Norby this Saturday
It’s time to bring an end to the carpetbagging campaign of Linda Ackerman. Please join Chris Norby in a precinct walk for his campaign for the 72nd Assembly District.
This race is an opportunity to send a reformer to Sacramento and to say “NO” to the business as usual politicians and special interest groups.
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2009
10am-1pm
Meet at:
CHRIS NORBY’S HOME
216 N. YALE
FULLERTON
Morning refreshments will be provided. For further questions or to confirm your attendance, please call 714-937-1005.
Since this blog has yet to provide any coverage of public school teacher John MacMurray, the Democratic candidate, I’d like to mention my interest in his platform to “Bring Back Responsible Gov’t” and compare him on a couple of points to FFFF’s favorite candidate, Chris Norby. I thank admin in advance for allowing such free debate and dialogue on this site.
On solving the state’s budget crisis, MacMurray told the League of Women Voters he would, “Look to other sources of revenue, like a business would. Impose an extraction fee for oil (California is the only state without one). Step up collections on undeclared income, unpaid fees, and other revenue losses to the state.”
MacMurray also supports vote-by-mail, noting it will save taxpayers approximately $200,000.00.
MacMurray’s interest in preserving “funding for public education, parks and the environment” reminds me of Chris Norby’s often touted intentions over the years to increase park space in North Orange County, where there is so much less compared to South County. (South OC has approximately 726 acres of open space for every person, over 100 times the amount of open space as does North Orange County, which has only 6 acres per person.) I don’t see that Norby ever realized his intentions on this issue. (Am I missing any recent developments?)
After 2.7 billion dollars worth of Measure M funding for transportation projects spent over the last two years by the OCTA, on whose board Norby sits, the OCTA’s Freeway Mitigation Program Fact Sheet indicates that up to $27.5 million (a fraction of the promised five-year total of $244 million) is finally expected to be available for acquisition or restoration over the next two years. It will be interesting to see if Norby, et al. will now move to give the bulk of it away to the Irvine Company.
Over the years, I have yet to hear of Norby taking a position on the long battle over West Coyote Hills. As the LA times noted, Coyote Hills has been a litmus test issue ever since the 2002 special election to fill Norby’s Fullerton City Council seat. As many here know, he left 2 years before finishing his Council term in order to move on to his elected Board of Supervisors position. Which reminds me, I find it disingenuous when politicians don’t honor the commitment of finishing the term for which they’ve been elected in order to move on to another gig.
Correction: Net Measure M expenditures from inception to June, 2006 total $2.7 billion. That is not a total for expenditures over the last two years.
Something to keep in mind with respect to parks and why so many are in South County. The Subdivision Map Act, along with zoning and planning regulations has been and always will be changing. In the early 1900’s, the state law was lacking and was silent on the subject of parklands set aside during the subdivision process. It wasn’t until March of 1972 that the State adopted the current version of the Subdivision Map Act which dictates the ratio or area or money needed to be set aside depending on the size of the subdivision or re-subdivision. It is in this same body of law that you find the requirements for affordable housing. Since the majority of the subdivisions in South County took place very near 1972 or after, and the fact that the Irvine Company together with the Rancho Mission Viejo Company own(ed) the vast majority of the land, those regions benefitted from the sheer volume and expanse of available land. Currently, most small subdividers pay a park fee in lieu of actually dedicating land. This all fall into the category of open space as defined in the Subdivision Map Act.
Go to http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/pzd/sub_ch4.html to read the SMA.
Also, it is unreasonable, in my opinion, for a government agency to condemn Coyote Hills. By the way, CH isn’t anything new. It’s been batted around for more than 30 years. As I told a client once who did not want homes built on her adjoining property, “The only way you can control what is built or not built on that property is to buy the property.” So she did for $5million! My point is that you and I (unless one of us is an unnamed oil company) do not own the property and therefore have very little control over what or how it is used SO LONG AS ITS USE IS CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING STATE AND LOCAL LAW.
As for MacMurray… I don’t know anything about him. I would like to see how he has voted on matters within his city, school district, county, etc. Unfortunately, he has never held a public office, at least not that I am aware of. In my opinion, the bigger the office, the more experience necessary to be effective in that office. I know lots of people do not like that rational, but it makes more sense to send the person who has demonstrated there agenda than to send someone who may buck with the first vote.
SO LONG AS ITS USE IS CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING STATE AND LOCAL LAW.
Coyote Hills is zoned O-G. The zoning is going to have to change – most likely to a PD. And only the council can do that – thereby increasing by orders of magnitude the value of that land.
The idea of a “park” is not the only option to a housing development. The do-nothing option is sitting right there for people who recognize the benefit of governments doing nothing (for a change).
We, The People, control the Council (at least in theory). They are supposed to exercise sound judgment (stop laughing) by enacting ordinances (or repealing them) that reflect their constituent’s wishes and vision and not their donors’ desires. I wouldn’t be surprised if the matter was somewhat deferred by the Council and sent to the voters.
The development wouldn’t have a direct impact on me but the long-term and indirect affect would be felt. Re-zoning is a big deal and each of us should brush up on what affects zoning has on us and our General Plan.
Parks require maintenance as do streets, sidewalks, sewers, and water lines for homes. If anything at all is developed, we will all be paying for it in some manner. If the city was to purchase the land for park use, can you and I afford the immediate costs as well as the long-term maintenance?
“Also, it is unreasonable, in my opinion, for a government agency to condemn Coyote Hills. By the way, CH isn’t anything new. It’s been batted around for more than 30 years.”
uhhhh, yer…that’s why I wrote that “Over the years, I have yet to hear of Norby taking a position” on the much talked about issue.
A “government agency” isn’t running for office. Norby is. Nobody asked an agency for a comment. Hope these clarifications help you with your reading comprehension.
“MacMurray… he has never held a public office”
For those who may have missed the scandalous newsflash: political insidership…not such a major selling point right about now.
Empathy,
Last things first: You are wrong. According to your post, MacMurray is interested in preserving parks, education, and the environment. What has he done in the community that demonstrates these interests? Is he a member of the Sierra Club? Does he work with Boy Scouts to preserve hiking trails? Does he drive a Prius? Does he have solar panels on his roof? Does any of it matter? If he were elected to a local office, we would be able to look at his voting record and see if his votes are where his mouth is. But we can’t do that because he appears to have no experience working with other elected officials to affect change. So, I do believe that previous elected experience is a plus. If experience isn’t so hot, why do incumbents continue to have the inside track on re-elections?
You are right that a government agency is not running for office. But you completely missed my point or decided to ignore it. Government agencies, LIKE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES MADE UP OF ELECTED OFFICIALS OR THEIR APPOINTEES, should not TAKE land for parks just because YOU don’t like what the property owners would like to do with the land.
I don’t know what, if any, Norby’s thoughts are on the oil fields. Maybe he doesn’t care one way or the other about what becomes of the property leaving it in the hands of the locals to make their own decisions without undue influence from above. Considering how he has fought redevelopment projects, I would imagine he would rather let private industry fight it out with the neighbors. I think Norby is a property rights advocate, but that is just my opinion.
If Norby said he was opposed to ANY and ALL development of the oil field, would you then support him?
“You are wrong.”
This makes no sense. How could I be wrong about Norby not publicizing his opinion on an issue? You come off like someone who tries to be combative for its own sake, not to get at the heart of matters that will affect us all.
“I don’t know what, if any, Norby’s thoughts are on the oil fields. Maybe he doesn’t care one way or the other about what becomes of the property…”
I don’t know his thoughts either and as I’ve been saying I’m interested in them. I’m interested in learning more about MacMurray as well. I’d rather see them debate (online or otherwise) than listen to bloggers speculate on Norby’s mysterious positions on such issues.
On the subject of gov’t not “taking” land for parks, I’m conversely interested in gov’t not gifting millions in land value to private corporations by way of zoning changes that would allow Chevron to choke the last of our open space with more homes. Folks want to know who the candidates are that will stop those attempting to sacrifice their constituents to a corporate interest that has already made millions off that land through oil and gas extraction, as well as residential development of most of what used to be Coyote Hills.
I support the prospect of Chevron cleaning up their mess and mitigating the land for toxins then donating it for the fat tax break and to justify running more wildlife heavy commercials telling us how much they really really care. Realistically though, we can hope to see them sell it at a fair market price as it currently zoned. It could be purchased in conjunction with established conservancy orgs with funds available via sources like the Measure M environmental mitigation fund and future sources of funding as the economy allows.
The truly important thing is not to sell out for developer dollars in the short term but preserve what is uniquely wonderful about our area far into the future.
Empathy, you said: “For those who may have missed the scandalous newsflash: political insidership…not such a major selling point right about now.”
Sitting on a city council is a great way, in my opinion, to see how dysfunctional a government agency can be and experience just how hard it to change the agency. Those experiences can certainly carryover without the candidate having any real “insidership”.
In a general sense, I agree with your thoughts on “gifting million”. However, if Chevron wants to request a change in zoning and they are able to convince staff and the council, then so be it. It is Chevron’s property; not mine, not yours, not Norby’s. As it is, an oil/gas field is producing (at least I would think that it is) all sorts of carcinogens that may be harming all of the area residents. I really don’t know, but it seams that a change in zoning might cause those wells to be sealed/capped which would improve the environment. I suppose Chevron could add another 50 wells and pumps along with a dozen storage tanks if Chevron thought they needed it. Would that be an improvement? Maybe if you hold stock in Chevron.
If enough people are determined to see a park developed there, they could buy the land. Of course it would have to be rezoned which means it could be rezoned to just about anything depending on the general plan. Perhaps those that really want it should get a ballot initiative together and bring it to the voters to determine what the permanent zoning should be. The downside is that Chevron could bankrupt the city (that’s you and I) if they wanted to make it a legal battle.
I like the open space and would like to hike the trails that would need to be built there. As a property owner, I am very sensitive to rezoning issues. In my opinion, parks are great but individual property rights are greater.
I wonder how many tax dollars have been spent mulling Chevron’s property through our city offices for 30 years. Whatever decision is made, it should be made swiftly considering the length of time that this has dragged on.
“I suppose Chevron could add another 50 wells and pumps along with a dozen storage tanks if Chevron thought they needed it.”
Not likely. After all these years, I believe they’ve sucked the gas & oil value they effectively can out of that land, which is why they’re ready to move on to the next stage of developmental exploitation: another multi-mil housing development.
The downside is that Chevron could bankrupt the city (that’s you and I) if they wanted to make it a legal battle.
A PR nightmare for them. I don’t think one should realistically expect this or be motivated by the bullying power of a greedy corporation of this size.
“In my opinion, parks are great but individual property rights are greater.”
Who isn’t for property rights on principle? No one likes the idea of the gov’t swooping in and taking what’s theirs. I don’t believe that eminent domain is really an option anyone is pushing for w/ Coyote Hills so it’s not clear where all this supposition is coming from. Don’t you know our city saves those maneuvers for ‘dozing gramma’s family Craftsman for audaciously being inconvenient to what they see as the greater corporate interests of McDonald’s.
I wonder how many tax dollars have been spent mulling Chevron’s property through our city offices for 30 years.
I wonder how much money could have been saved if the City would acknowledge the myriad problems that make rezoning this land as residential an ill-advised proposition. The third revision to the EIR was just released for public comment. Why? Because the water, seismic, and other environmental issues are never going away. Building on those hills is wrong for too many reasons to ignore.
Whatever decision is made, it should be made swiftly considering the length of time that this has dragged on.
Here’s an idea. Why not take the necessary time to make a sound decision that will benefit ours and the outlying communities instead?
30 years isn’t enough time? Are you nuts? We could have had a park full of mature trees and a 2nd or 3rd generation of playground equipment by now! We could have homes giving us additional tax revenue with the adult children of the first buyer’s now buying back into the city. I suppose many would like this to drag out another 30 years. In the meantime, no one can set foot on the Chevron property to enjoy nature or contemplate the possibilities. It’s a Mexican standoff where no one wins.
“30 years isn’t enough time? Are you nuts?”
Enough time for what? Chevron hasn’t been pursuing a zoning change for that long. They were busy pumping oil. My #1 comment above links to an article from 2002 detailing the start of this 7 years and counting issue. I am not nuts. Now my turn to ask an inflamatory question: are you literate?
More to the point: Why are you trying so hard to spin this with non-facts (to no avail)?
* inflammatory
It isn’t always incumbent on the property owner to change zoning. And what’s up with the literacy comments? I am a product of Fullerton’s “wonderful” school system – Go Indians! The fact that I suffer from dyslexia is not your concern.
There is no spinning going on. There is your opinion, my opinion (both aren’t that far apart). I read your first comment regarding Norby to imply that you expected or desired him to turn the property into a park through his office. “MacMurray’s interest in preserving “funding for public education, parks and the environment” reminds me of Chris Norby’s often touted intentions over the years to increase park space in North Orange County, where there is so much less compared to South County. (South OC has approximately 726 acres of open space for every person, over 100 times the amount of open space as does North Orange County, which has only 6 acres per person.) I don’t see that Norby ever realized his intentions on this issue. (Am I missing any recent developments?)” What was it that you expected Norby to do? What do you expect MacMurray to do?
You made a good point with respect to the imbalance of parklands in South County vs. north. Beyond that, we need to look at why/how that came to be. I offered up a few facts regarding subdivision law, my opinion on imminent domain, and property rights. You didn’t seem to understand or care that about the fact that subdivision law is the chief reason we have few large city parks in Fullerton.
And finally, yes this debate has been on the books at city hall for 30 years, give or take a couple. So if you really think it needs more time to be discussed, I think you are being completely unreasonable. As I alluded to before, the presence of houses or a park or an oil field won’t change my quality of life.
“I offered up a few facts regarding subdivision law”
OF COURSE! YOU ARE GREG HIDING BEHIND AN ANONYMOUS PSEUDONYM TO CREATE A SPIN IDENTITY TO BOLSTER YOUR OWN ARGUMENT UNDER ANOTHER NAME. hahaha so weak. In your lonely frenzy to blog-argue with someone, you forgot which spin mask you were wearing. AHAHHhahahah I’m surprised anonymous didn’t open with “I agree with Greg!” How did your ego ever let you hold back?!
You are deceitful, wrong, annoying, and creepy. Leave me alone under any nickname in the future please.
Trackback to comments made this morning under the nick “Greg” during the same time as “Greg/Anonymous” was jumping back and forth to this thread and posting under “Anonymous.”
“There is no spinning going on…I read your first comment regarding Norby to imply that you expected or desired him to turn the property into a park through his office.”
That is never what I said. There were two separate issues you’re mushing to suit your argumentative purposes: 1) Norby’s self-publicized proclamations that he would work to increase park space in NOC, and 2) his opinion on the Coyote Hills issue. A perfect example of how you spin falsehoods and misrepresentations into your argumentation. It’s tedious blogging (which I’d like to be well done with for the day) and all your accusations of my lack of reason would best be pointed inward if reason is your ally.
Ha that’s funny! You’re reading into something that isn’t there. I was busy typing up the comment and never noticed what name if any was there. In the past, it remembers my name so why did it not. Whatever…Yes, let there be no doubt, it’s Greg.
And there you go reading into something that’s not there again with the spin. Quite, funny.
Like you, I gave my opinion. If you don’t like, then gosh…I’m just crushed… :+(
There were no accusations typed by me. I typed the facts as I know them which you continue to ignore. I gave my opinion which you discredit because of some personal bias you have. On one hand we are talking apples and oranges and on the other we are in agreement. So what’s wrong with that?
You are being mean and really should leave me alone and stop attacking me. I’m not sure which nerve I hit with you but it makes for an entertaining blog, I’m sure. Good luck and may the best use of Chevron’s land prevail…whatever that mat be.
“I was busy typing up the comment and never noticed”
Lies. CommentS. Plural. THREE comments under “Anonymous” over the course of a whole morning during which you also posted as “Greg” in another thread.
“Like you, I gave my opinion.”
Your opinion is laced with misrepresentation.
“There were no accusations typed by me.”
You implied I was “nuts” after telling me how flat out “wrong” I am. Your blogging style is personal and accusatory but you whine when dished your own medicine. Perhaps you have lost or never had the ability to see your instigating ways.
Just as with your pervy comments in another thread, you would be well advised to stop starting dishonorable trouble and then crying “meanie” when you’re exposed.
I’m glad we’re agreed to leave each other alone. The nerve you hit is simply explained. I believe you are, at the core, a bad person. Your ill-formed, poorly presented ideas are representative of my town and it irks me that you are part of the digital impression that people have of us.
For my part, I’m sorry I called you lonely. That is an impression, not fact. I stand by every other word of my responses to your shenanigans.
Good luck to you as well.
“ill-formed, poorly presented ideas are representative of my town”
Now this excerpt is something I can buy into!
Notice that ***un-named*** has avoided my questions:
What was it that they excpected Norby to have done as an OC Supervisor?
What do they expect MacMurray to do as a State Assemblyman?
How would Norby’s opinion on the use of the Chevron property change the way you might vote?
And last, but not least, the debate has been bouncing around city hall for 30 years. Why does anyone need anymore time?